The moral strength to nurture

The Nurturant Parent has to be strong – strong enough to support and protect a child and strong enough to nurture, which is not an enterprise for weaklings. Nurturing children is exhausting work physically, mentally, and emotionally. For a nurturant parent, strength is in the service of nurturance.

The metaphor of Morality As Nurturance therefore requires an appropriate version of the metaphor of Moral Strength, one in which Moral Strength is in service of Moral Nurturance, that is, where Moral Nurturance has the highest priority and Moral Strength contributes to it. But this means that the metaphor of Moral Strength cannot appear in the system of Nurturant Parent morality in the same form in which it appears in Strict Father morality, where it had the highest priority. In the Nurturant Parent system, the Moral Strength metaphor cannot contradict the metaphors of Morality As Empathy, Nurturance, and Happiness. A version of Moral Strength can appear in the system, but only that part of it that is consistent with Morality As Empathy, Nurturance, and Happiness. Let us consider exactly what that means.

The conceptual metaphor of Moral Strength is stated as in the Strict Father system:

• Being Good Is Being Upright.

• Being Bad Is Being Low.

• Evil Is a Force (external or internal).

• Morality Is Strength.

But when set in the Nurturant Parent system of morality and made to serve and be consistent with the metaphor of Morality As Nurturance and all that goes along with it, the entailments of the Moral Strength metaphor change drastically.

Morality As Empathy and Nurturance requires that one empathize with and be nurturant toward people with different values than one's own, including different moral values. This means that one cannot maintain a strict good-evil dichotomy. To be able to see the world through other people's values and truly empathize with them means that you cannot see all people who have different moral values than yours as enemies to be demonized.

There are external evils, dangers, and hardships and one must be strong to confront them to protect oneself and one's family. That strength comes, not through self-denial and the imposition of discipline for discipline's sake, but rather through the regular exercise of nurturance, which takes strength and hence builds strength.

In addition, the notion of internal evils changes radically. The internal evils that are destructive and that must be confronted are those that interfere with empathy, nurturance, self-nurturance, the maintenance of social ties, the realization of one's potential, and so on. Those internal evils, or moral weaknesses, are lack of social responsibility, selfishness, self-righteousness, narrow-mindedness, inability to experience pleasure, aesthetic insensitivity, lack of curiosity, uncommunicativeness, dishonesty, insensitivity to feelings, inconsiderateness, uncooperativeness. meanness, self-centeredness, and lack of self-respect. In Nurturant Parent morality, the virtues to be taught – the moral strengths – are the opposites of the internal evils: social responsibility, generosity, respect for the values of others, open-mindedness, a capacity for pleasure, aesthetic sensitivity, inquisitiveness, ability to communicate, honesty, sensitivity to feelings, considerateness, cooperativeness, kindness, community -mindedness, and self-respect. A person of good character is a person who has these virtues.

To those raised with Strict Father morality, it may not be obvious why these are, respectively, moral weaknesses and strengths – moral flaws and moral virtues. But from the perspective of nurturance, it is clear. Lack of social responsibility, selfishness, insensitivity to feelings, inconsiderateness, meanness, and dishonesty make it hard to abide by the metaphor of Morality As Nurturance. Incuriosity leads to a lack of knowledge, and since knowledge is needed to be successfully nurturant, the lack of curiosity also limits one's ability for successful nurturance. Self-righteousness and self-centeredness make it difficult to abide by the metaphor of Morality As Empathy. By the logic behind the metaphor of Morality As Happiness, the inability to experience pleasure and aesthetic insensitivity are moral flaws, since they limit the experience of joy and hence limit one's capacity for empathy and one's ability to give joy to others. Uncommunicativeness and uncooperativeness greatly limit one's capacity to nurture social ties. Lack of self-respect makes it difficult to develop one's full potential, which in turn may keep one from developing one's full capacity for nurturance.

Inquisitiveness and honesty jointly characterize the passion for truth and knowledge – even truth and knowledge about ourselves and our society that may not be pleasant. The ability to nurture successfully requires that we know and understand ourselves and our society – especially the dark side – as deeply and truthfully as we can. Art is partly a matter of beauty – the creation of it and the inquiry into what it is – but just as importantly a matter of inquiring into, exploring, and attempting to comprehend our souls and our society – the dark as well as the light. From the perspective of nurturance, art and the search for knowledge and understanding are, for these reasons, moral activities of the highest order. From the perspective of nurturance, the age-old equation of the Good, the True, and the Beautiful makes perfect sense.

Many of the sins – the moral weaknesses – of Strict Father morality are not present in Nurturant Parent morality. Given the view of Morality As Happiness, the pleasures of the body take on positive moral value, so long as they don't interfere with nurturance, self-nurturance, and the development of one's potential. Sensuality is a virtue, just as is aesthetic sensitivity. Neither are virtues in Strict Father morality. Sex education is important in Nurturant Parent morality, not just to prevent unwanted pregnancy or the transmission of sexual diseases, but also to spread knowledge about nurturant sexuality and how to maximize the giving and receiving of sexual pleasure. Sexual activity without marriage is not immoral in itself; it is immoral only if it results in harm to oneself or others.